Chatrie v. United States · ¶55

The Government has an additional argument, which in Carpenter was its “primary” one—that the so-called third- party doctrine precludes Chatrie from invoking the Fourth Amendment’s protections. 585 U. S., at 313. (Here too the dissent reiterates the Government’s view. See post, at 11– 12, 17 (ALITO, J.).) The idea is that in “authoriz[ing] Google to collect, retain, and use” his location information, Chatrie lost his legitimate expectation of privacy, and therefore his right to complain of a search—regardless whether it was for two hours, two weeks, or two years. Brief for United States 15. The problem for the Government—and presumably the reason that its primary assertion in Carpenter has here become a secondary one—is that Carpenter refused to apply the third-party doctrine to CSLI, and no good reason exists to reach a different result for Location History.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.